On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:52:41AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> We have always that [o]p -> [o][o]p  (like we have also always that
> []p -> [][]p)

There may be things we can prove, but about which we are in fact mistaken, ie
[]p & -p

Obviously, one cannot prove []p & p, for very many statements, ie 

[]p & p does not entail []([o]p)

Therefore, it cannot be that [o]p -> [o]([o]p) ???

Something must be wrong...


Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to